Co-existing with black bears in Massachusetts : guidelines for the prevention and management of bear damage

cooperative Extension System

ING WITH

BEARS

CHUSEHS

C208

ames E. Cardoza

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
/estborough, MA 01581

Diversity of Massachusetts, United States Department of Agriculture
nd Massachusetts counties cooperating.

Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work. Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the United States
Department of Agriculture. Robert G. Helgesen, Dean and Director, University of Massachusetts Cooperative Extension
System. The Cooperative Extension System offers equal opportunity in programs and employment. CR-0208:4l93-5M

1 993 Printed on Recycled Paper ^

jT A BLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 2

Black Bear Biology and Ecology 3

Description 3

Range 3

Habitat and Food Preferences 3

Reproduction 3

Home Range, Activities, and Movements 3

Legal Status 4

Status of Black Bear Damage 5

Black Bear Damage Management Recommendations 5

Protection of Apiaries, Bees, and Honey 6

How To Identify Black Bear Damage 6

Preventive Measures 6

Protection of Corn Crops 7

How To Identify Black Bear Damage 7

Preventive Measures 8

Protection of Livestock or Other Domestic Animals 9

How To Identify Black Bear Damage 9

Preventive Measures 9

Lethal Action 10

Conclusion 10

Sources of Assistance 11

Sources of Electric and Non-Electric Fencing Materials 12

Acknowledgments 13

References 13

I

1

Introduction

Black bears {Ursus americanus) are the only bear species found in
the eastern United States. They are large, wide-ranging, relatively
long-lived, intelligent, and generally elusive animals. They have
one of the lowest reproductive rates of any North American mammal.
Because of their large size, domineering presence, and adaptability in
range and food habits, bears frequently have been regarded by humans
as nuisances or competitors and their numbers have been reduced by
vigorous control measures and changes to their habitat. More recently,
black bears have been treated as big game animals, and valued for the
recreational hunting opportunity provided during limited open seasons.
Reactions of humans to bears often are colored by our cultural $
background and exposure to distorted presentations in the
media, resulting in attitudes ranging from irrational fear to
emotional protectionism. Such responses compUcate the bio-
logical and ecological aspects of black bear management
programs, which must address bear biology and ecology,
habitat conservation, and human-bear interactions. These
aspects must be integrated into a balanced program of
consumptive and non-consumptive measures designed to
manage bear populations at levels compatible with the
available habitat and human interests.

If we are to understand why bear damage occurs
and how it can be minimized or prevented,
then a basic understanding of black bear biol-
ogy and ecology is required (i.e., how bears
live, behave, and fit into the environment).
For this reason, the following brief summary
of black bear life history and behavior has
been included.

2

Buck bear

biology and ecology

Description

Black bears are large-bodied animals that have a
small, narrow head, powerful limbs, and small
ears. Bears in the Northeast typically are entirely
black with a brown muzzle and, occasionally, a small
white chest patch (Figure 1). Adult females weigh
100-180 pounds whereas adult males are larger, at
150-300 pounds. The existing state record (dressed
weight) for a male black bear in Massachusetts is 467
pounds (or greater than 550 pounds live weight).
Black bears have 5 toes, each with a well-developed
claw, on both front and hind feet, and teeth adapted
for feeding on both plant and animal matter.

Range

Black bears inhabit much of Alaska, Canada, and the
western and north central United States. In the East,
they occur along the Appalachian Mountains from
Maine to Florida. In Massachusetts, bears are found in
suitable habitat everywhere west of the Connecticut
River and, in lesser densities, east of the Connecticut
River from Franklin County through central Worcester
County.

Habitat and Food Preferences

Typical black bear habitat is characterized by remote
terrain, thick understory vegetation, and an abun-
dance of seasonal fruits, berries, and nut crops. Wetlands
are of prime importance to bears in Massachusetts,
especially in spring and early summer when these areas
provide food (grasses, sedges, tubers, and various
fruits and berries) and cover, and serve as travel
corridors. Ants and other insects commonly are con-
sumed in summer. Nut crops, especially acorns, hickory
nuts, and beechnuts, are preferred fall foods.

Bears frequently adapt to human presence, but in
developed areas, human intolerance of bears may
lead to a reduction of the bear population. Near urban
and agricultural areas, depredations by bears are most
likely to occur in spring when natural foods are

Figure I: Bear in cornfield

- scarce, or in late summer and fall, especially during
years of poor berry and nut yields.

Reproduction

Female black bears become sexually mature at 3-5
years of age, and generally breed every other year
thereafter. Mating takes place in late June and July,
but embryonic development does not begin until
November or December. Two to four cubs, each
weighing about one-half pound, are bom in late Janu-
ary or early February while the female is denning.
Young remain with the female for about 16 months,
and will den with her again during the second winter
but disperse from the family group the following
spring. Mortality is highest among young dispersing
individuals, particularly males, due to inexperience,
movement into unfamiliar territory in pursuit of food
and home ranges, and competition. Because of the
relatively low reproductive potential of bears, any
change in breeding age, litter size, and frequency of
breeding resulting from food shortages or stress may
seriously affect the stability of bear populations.

Home Range,
Activities, and Movements

A black bear's home range is not an exclusive terri-
tory that is defended against other bears, but rather is
an area familiar to the bear and in which it spends most
or all of its time during the course of the year.

3

Considerable overlap may occur in ranges among
bears of different sexes and ages, but bears usually
avoid direct contact with each other. The average
home range of an adult, male bear in Massachusetts
is about 120 square miles whereas that of an adult
female is only 1 1 square miles. After the family unit
(a female and her young) breaks up, yearlings gener-
ally remain within the mother ' s home range until they
become sub-adults, at which time they form their own
home range. Sub-adult females usually just expand
their yearling range, but sub-adult males often move
substantial distances (12-60 miles) and establish a
range well outside their rearing area. These dispers-
ing young males sometimes wander into suburban
areas, causing concern among residents unfamiliar
with bear habits and behavior.

Bears may be active throughout daylight hours, but
particularly at dawn and dusk. Bears in Massachusetts
rarely are active at night, except during the breeding
season or where contact with humans is frequent.
Movements by bears usually are limited in spring,
but, by summer, breeding males may travel widely. In
fall, bears become less active and their travels are
limited to areas near productive food sources. Onset
of denning occurs from early November to early
December and is related to the fall food supply;
denning occurs early when foods are scarce or later if
foods are abundant. Bears will den in brush piles,
logging slash, hollow trees, under rock outcrops, or
simply at the base of a tree. The date of emergence
from the winter den is variable, but most bears in
Massachusetts leave the den in early to mid-April.

The timing of emergence is dictated more by the
availability of food rather than weather conditions.
Adult males usually emerge first; females with new-
bom cubs frequently emerge last.

Legal Status

Black bears are regulated as a game species in
Massachusetts and may be hunted by permit only
during a limited open season. Trapping of bears is
illegal in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Cur-
rent hunting season dates are listed in the pamphlet
"Abstracts of the Massachusetts Fish and Wildlife
Laws," available from city and town clerks. The
complete text of the regulations may be found in the
Code of Massachusetts Regulations, 321 CMR 3.02( 1).

Persons suffering damage by a bear are urged to
contact the nearest District Office of the Massachusetts
Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (MDFW) prior to
taking any control action. When such contact is made
immediately following damage, or beforehand in
situations where damage is anticipated, Division per-
sonnel will provide recommendations on appropriate
preventive measures or control strategies that can
lessen the problem. Under certain circumstances,
landowners, tenants, members of their immediate
families, or persons permanently employed by them
may kill a bear that is damaging their property. When
authorized, lethal measures may only be employed in
accordance with provisions of Chapter 131, Section
37, Massachusetts General Laws.

60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Figure 2: Seasonal Occurrence of Depredations by Bears in Massachusetts, 1990
{% respondents)

Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
^^^1 Bees Corn ^^^^ Livestock

4

Status of

buck bear damage

In Massachusetts, black bear depredation is not a
state-wide problem, rather it is local, seasonal, and
can be quite severe for individual growers. Within
the bear's known range, the incidence of damage has
increased 23% since 1985. During 1990, 15% of the
agricultural producers in the Commonwealth experi-
enced some damage from bears. When depredations
occur, they usually coincide with maturity of the com
crop, pollination season for bees/honey, or the live-
stock birthing season (Figure 2). Damage attributed
to a bear can be verified by actually seeing a bear
cause damage or by other on-site evidence of a bear' s
presence (tracks, feces). Although damage incurred
by agricultural producers has ranged from less than
$ 100 to more than $3,000/year, the number of depre-
dation incidences averaged less than 5/year. A recent
survey of agricultural producers revealed that they
maintain a positive attitude toward black bears in the
environment and are willing to tolerate bears pro-
vided that they personally do not incur damage to
their commodities. In fact, most producers also rec-
ommended that the bear population in Massachusetts
should either stay at its current level or continue to
slowly increase.

Buck bear
damage management
recommendations

As the bear population continues to expand (cur-
rent population estimates project a 50% increase
in bear numbers over the next 5-7 years), the
likelihood of depredation by bears also is anticipated
to increase. Thus, there will be a clear need for
damage management and prevention, particularly for
producers located within the existing range of bears in
Massachusetts.

Black bears are highly intelligent animals with a keen
learning capacity. They will adapt to changes in
habitat or food sources, and tolerate contact with

humans as they search for food, particularly foods
associated with humans in suburban areas. In addi-
tion, bears are capable of remembering from year to
year the location of reliable sources of food. Thus, it
is important to take precautions to prevent depreda-
tions from occurring and to not entice bears with food.
Although bears are secretive and shy by nature, they
are wild and unpredictable animals, and may become
aggressive in response to abuse or undue provocation.

The measures by which bear damage may be allevi-
ated vary with the nature and severity of the problem,
and may include proactive preventive actions and/or
control measures applied after damage has occurred.
For producers located within or adjacent to known
bear range, precautions should be taken to avoid
potential confrontations and loss before damage actu-
ally occurs. The most effective and long-lasting suc-
cess will be gained through damage prevention rather
than "after-the-fact" responses to a bear that already
has gained access to foods or adapted to its availabil-
ity. Bears learn rapidly and if their activities are
"rewarded" by food, many barriers or harassment
techniques will be substantially less effective than if
these animals had been excluded initially. As is true
in most problem wildlife situations, no technique will
provide absolute security from depredations. How-
ever, certain measures that are initiated in a timely
manner, properly constructed and well maintained,
and applied with an understanding of bear habits and
behavior can greatly reduce the extent and severity of
bear damage.

To reduce the potential for damage by black bears,
don't encourage their presence or attract them to your
property. Growers should be sure to 1) exercise good
husbandry and maintain sanitary conditions, 2) re-
move all sources of alternative foods (e.g., garbage or
refuse, unprotected compost piles, pet foods, bird
feeders, animal carcasses), and 3) move domestic
livestock into protected areas or away from areas with
heavy cover. By all means, don't feed bears at or near
home— this only attracts bears and habituates them to
humans.

These generic or common sense precautions may not
be sufficient to address damage problems on certain
commodities. However, there are other, more tar-
geted deterrent methods that can be used. In the
following sections, we offer producers of bees/honey,
com, and livestock a more detailed review of the
symptoms of bear damage, its identification, what to
do if damage occurs, and where to go for assistance.

5

Protection of apiaries,
bees and honey

How To Identify Black Bear Damage

■ visual observation of a bear causing damage;

■ evidence of bear tracks, feces, hair, or other sign;

■ supers (hives) knocked over, scattered and torn
apart (Figure 3);

■ numerous frames damaged or broken (look for
claw marks);

■ honeycombs and/or larvae destroyed or
consumed.

Skunks, and sometimes raccoons, also may destroy
bee hives. However, their sign is much smaller and
the extent of their damage is less destructive than that
of a bear.

1

Preventive Measures

If damage has not yet occurred:

■ keep mowed, cleared corridors around hive
sites;

■ avoid placing hives in abandoned areas or
near wooded, overgrown areas;

■ avoid feeding bears or providing supple-
mental food anywhere on your property as
a means to distract or "decoy" them. This
usually only attracts and habituates bears;

■ erect temporary or permanent electric
fencing — suggested electric fencing
options include:

a) temporary, prefabricated electric net
fencing (support posts are incorporated into
fence) (Figure 4);

b) temporary polypropylene electric tape
on fiberglass posts;

c) permanent, high-tensile, electrified wire
on wooden posts (Figure 5).

Figure 3: Supers (hives) damaged by bear

If damage has already occurred: ^HHR

■ consult the nearest District Office of the
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and
Wildlife (MDFW) for technical assistance
(see Sources of Assistance on page 1 1 for
location nearest to you);

■ erect temporary or permanent electric fenc-
ing, baited heavily with peanut butter,
bacon or bacon fat, sardines, or other
suitable attractant;

■ elevate hives on platforms protected by por-
table electric fencing;

Although generic plans for constructing perma-
■ nent or semi-permanent electric fences are avail-
^ able from the MDFW, the specific design and Ust

of materials will vary depending upon the needs of

each particular situation and the number of hives

to be protected.

Figure 4: Temporary, prefabricated net fencing

Figure 5: Permanent net fencing

Protection
of corn crops

How To Identify Black Bear Damage

■ visual observation of the bear causing damage;

■ evidence of bear tracks, feces, hair, or other sign
(Figure 6);

■ presence of somewhat circular patches within the
field's interior where stalks have been pulled
inward and flattened or broken (Figure 7);

■ ears of com that are completely eaten or cleaned
of kernels, but not all ears on a stalk will be
affected. More plants may be damaged than are
actually consumed (Figure 8);

■ damage occurring at the "milk-stage" of
development.

Care must be taken to distinguish damage caused by
bears from that of other potential predators. Rac-
coons frequently will pull down stalks, strip ears from
a stalk, and chew kernels from an ear; the large
circular patches of damaged com in a field usually are
lacking with raccoons and less total area will be
affected when compared with bears. Other animals.

7

Figure 6: Bear footprint

such as porcupines, deer, beaver, and even coyote,
may cause damage to com. Stalks may be chewed and
felled (beaver, porcupine), ears and silk are often
nipped (deer, coyote), or whole plants may be re-
moved (beaver). It is important to check all field signs
to correctly identify damage caused by these species
versus bears.

Preventive Measures

If damage has not yet occurred:

■ keep mowed, open corridors around and
between fields;

■ alternate other row crops with com to
provide less cover and food;

■ avoid feeding bears or providing supple-
mental food anywhere on your property as
a means to distract or "decoy" them. This
usually only attracts and habituates bears.

If damage has occurred:

■ consult the nearest District Office of the
MDFW for technical assistance (see
Sources of Assistance for location nearest
to you);

■ use bear hounds to chase bears away dur-
ing prime com maturity;

■ use single strand, baited, polytape electric
fencing around fields or at least on the
most exposed side(s) of a field as crop
matures, especially just prior to and at
"milk-stage" of development.

Figure 7: Aerial view of cornfield damaged by bear

Figure 8: Ears of corn chewed by bear

Protection of
livestock or other
domestic animals

How To Identify Black Bear Damage

■ visual observation of a bear in the act of harassing
or attacking domestic stock;

■ evidence of bear tracks, feces, hair, or other sign;

■ animals surviving a mauling (often young or
weak) u'ill show tooth marks on neck at the base
of the skull or long claw marks (with 1/2 inch
separation) on the shoulders;

■ animals that have succumbed to bear attack often
will have a broken neck or back as a result of
blows from the bear's paws;

■ bears will drag or carry a carcass away from the
kill site, cache it, and retum regularly to feed on it;

■ bears often will strip back or reverse the skin of
larger prey, particularly along the back
(Figure 9);

■ the udder of lactating female prey is highly pre-
ferred by bears and often will be eaten first;

■ inexperienced bears might expose the viscera,
but meat usually is preferred and consumed.

Care must be taken to distinguish bear damage from
that of other carnivores, especially coyotes and do-
mestic dogs. Coyotes usually kill their prey with bites
to the neck, but, unlike bears, they feed on internal
organs and hindquarters first rather than on the back
or shoulders; long, 1/2 inch claw marks on the body
generally are lacking; and coyotes/dogs usually do
not strip back the prey's skin.

Figure 9: Sheep preyed upon by black bear

Preventive Measures

If damage has not yet occurred:

■ avoid pasturing animals in abandoned areas,
areas with heavy cover, or areas adjacent
to probable corridors used by bears;

■ do not leave carcasses of dead animals
exposed and available in fields, pastures, or
areas near the farm. Bury or incinerate
them completely;

■ avoid feeding bears or providing supple-
mental food anywhere on your prof)erty as
a means to distract or "decoy" them. This
usually only attracts and habituates bears;

■ where possible, pen animals near or in
the bam at night, particularly expectant
females or females with young. Avoid
birthing animals in the field, or if pasture
birthing is necessary, clear affected areas of
all sign of birthing (afterbirth material is a
very good attractant for bears, coyotes, and

■k other predators).

9

If damage has already occurred:

■ consult the nearest District Office of the
MDFW for technical assistance (see
Sources of Assistance for nearest location );

■ used trained bear hounds or guarding dogs
to ward off or deter bears;

■ consider modifying or replacing existing
fencing with high voltage (>6,000 volts),
low impedance electric fencing around
animal enclosures.

Lethal action

If all attempts to deter bear depredation with preven-
tive or non-lethal measures have failed, removal of
the offending animal(s) may be warranted. Produc-
ers are encouraged to keep their lands open and
available to hunters and, during the regulated season,
to assist local hunters in identifying depredating bears.
Regardless of time of year, the owner of the property,
a member of their immediate family, or a person
permanently employed by them may control or
destroy a bear, but only while the animal is in the act
of causing damage. Landowners are required to
report any such taking and to surrender the bear's
carcass to the MDFW within 24 hours.

Conclusion

Sustaining a viable population of black bears is
important because bears are an indicator species
of what is occurring in our environment and they
are an integral part of a functioning ecosystem. Man-
agement strives to achieve a balance between the
cultural and biological carrying capacities of the
black bear population, but this also requires an effort
from the public. Black bears are very adaptable in
their pursuit of food, which has led to conflicts
between humans and bears. Therefore, with invest-
ment in long-term black bear deterrent techniques

and producers' willingness to tolerate and learn about
bears, the public and bears can co-exist and reap
mutual benefits from a well-balanced and function-
ing ecosystem. By understanding the biology and
behavior of the black bear, and by following the
recommendations listed above, the black bear can be
managed appropriately and will remain a native spe-
cies in Massachusetts as a part of our natural heritage.

10

Sources of assistance

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries
and Wildlife

Field Headquarters

1 Rabbit HiU Road

Westboro, MA 01581

(508) 366-4470, (508) 366-4479 or

(508) 792-7270

District Wildlife Offices

Western District
400 Hubbard Avenue
Pittsfield, MA 01201
(413) 447-9789

Northeast District
Box 2086 Harris Street
Acton, MA 01720
(508) 263-4347

Connecticut Valley District
East Street

Belchertown, MA 01007
(413) 323-7632

Southeast District
195 Boumedale Road
Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
(508) 759-3406

Central District
Temple Street
West Boylston, MA 01583
(508) 835-3607

University of Massachusetts
Cooperative Extension System

Department of Forestry and Wildlife

Management

(413)545-2665

Department of Entomology
Extension Bee Specialist
(413)545-2283

Massachusetts Apiaculture and Chief
Apiary Inspector
(413) 545-2283

United States Department of
Agriculture

APHIS-Animal Damage Control
463 West Street
Amherst, MA 01002
(413) 253-2403

Massachusetts Farm Bureau
Federation

15 Great Road
Bedford, MA 01730
(617) 275-4374

Sources of electric and
non-electric fencing aaaterials

Authorized Field Representatives or Distributors of Commercial Products

(listed in alphabetical order)*

Advanced Farm Systems, Inc.

Box 364

Bradford, ME 04410
(207) 327-1237

Agri-Lease by Telmark

c/o George Brown, Jr., District

manager

Box 121

Chelmsford, MA 01824
(617) 256-7696

Aligned Fiber Composites

Common Sense Fencing
Highway 52 South
Chatfield, MN 55923
(507) 867-5640

Bancroft Products, Inc.

c/o Harold "Chip" Rice
84 Iron Works Road
Concord, NH 03301
(603) 225-5572

Brookside Industries, Inc.

Brookside Farm
Tumbridge, VT 05077
(802) 889-3737

K Fence Systems

c/o Hugh Kraemer
Zumbro Falls, MN 55991
(507) 753-2943

Kencove Fence

1 1 1 Kendall Lane
Blairsville, PA 15717

(800) 245-6902

Kiwi Fence Systems
R.D. 5 Box 122
Waynesburg, PA 15370
(412) 627-5640

Koppers Company

Treated Wood Products Division
Room 950, Koppers Building
Pittsburgh, PA 15129
(412) 227-2407

Live- Wire Products

Box 38

Sherman Mills, ME 04776
(207) 365-4438

Margo Supplies, Ltd.

Wildlife Control

Site 20, Box 11,R.R. 6

Calgary, Alberta T2M 4L5

Canada

(403)285-9731

Dennis Roessiger
Route 109

Mirror Lake, NH 03853
(603) 569-1620

Tom Settlemire

Territory Manager
Gallagher Fence
Box 1592 River Road
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 729-9748

Tech-Fence Division

Multi-Tech Industries, Inc.
P.O. Box A
64 South Main Street
Marlboro, NJ 07746
(800) 431-3223

Walnut Grove Farm

c/o John & Laura Gund
50 Cartland Road
Lee, NH 03824
(603) 659-2044

Wellscroft Farm

c/o Dave & Deborah Kennard
46 Sunset Hill - Chesham
Marlborough, NH 03455
(603) 827-3464

West Virginia Electric Fencing

Route 81, Box 47
Greenville, WV 24945
(304) 753-4935

The Wright Place

c/o Gary Wright
5051 Fowler Road
Reading, MI 49274
(517)283-2645

* Inclusion on this list does not represent an endorsement by the authors or sponsoring organizations. It is supplied
for information only.

12

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson) administrative funds, as authorized by the Northeast
Wildlife Administrators Association through Federal Aid of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and funds from
the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Extension Service (Grant No. 88-EXCA-2-0870, as amended) were allocated
to this project in an effort to address wildlife restoration and damage management needs. This project was
conducted in cooperation with the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, the University of Massachu-
setts Cooperative Extension System and Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management, and the Massachu-
setts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. Information presented in this brochure represents an update
and enhancement of Publication #14143- 1 3-300-8-85-CR produced by the MA Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
and authored by James Cardoza (contribution of Massachusetts Federal Aid in WildUfe Restoration Project W-
35-R). We thank Dr. Todd Fuller and Dave Fuller, Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management, University
of Massachusetts-Amherst, for reviewing earlier drafts of this publication.

REFERENCES

Cardoza, J.E. 1976. The history and status of the black bear in Massachusetts and adjacent New England states. Mass. Div.
Fish. Wildl. Res. Bull. 18. 113 pp.

. 1985. Black bear damage and control in Massachusetts. Mass. Div. Fish. Wildl. Publ. 14143-13-300-8-85-CR,

Mass. Federal Aid in Wildl. Restor. Proj. W-35-R. 11 pp.

. 1990. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife standard protocol for the capture,

handling, marking, transport, and field investigation of black bear (Ursus americanus). Unpubl. internal publ. 42 pp.

Green, J.S., and R.A. Woodruff. 1989. Livestock-guarding dogs reduce depredation by bears. Pages 49-53 in M. Bromley,
ed. Proceedings of a symposium on management strategies: bear-people conflicts. Northwest Territ. Dep.
Renew.Resour., Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, Canada

Jorgensen, C.J., R.H. Conley, R.J. Hamilton, and O.T. Sanders. \91%. Management of blackbear depredation problems. Proc.
East. Black Bear Workshop 4:297-319.

Robinson, S.A. 1992. Black bear depredation in the Northeast: problems, deterrents, and public education. M.S. Thesis,
Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst. 100 pp.

Roy, L.D., and M.J. Dorrance. 1976. Methods of investigating predation of domestic livestock. Alberta Agric. Plant Ind. Lab.,
Edmonton, Alberta. 54 pp.

Will, G.B. 1 980. Black bear-human conflicts and management considerations to minimize and correct these problems. Proc.
East. Black Bear Workshop 5:75-88.

PHOTO CREDITS/ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Cover illustration(s): Nancy Haver, Amherst, MA

Figure 1 : Ethan Howard, MA Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit

Figure 3: MA Division of Fisheries & Wildlife

Figure 4: Rob Calvert, NH Fish & Game Dept., Concord, NH

Figure 5: Manitoba Fish & Wildlife Agency, as adapted by Jill Sack Johnson

Figure 6, 7, 8: Rob Calvert, NH Fish & Game Dept., Concord, NH

Figure 9: from - Physical Evidence of Carnivore Depredation, produced by James A. Bowns, Utah State University, and Dale
A. Wade, Texas A & M University, San Angelo, TX , with permission.

13